Bush Splits on Greenhouse Gases With Congress and State Officials

By FELICITY BARRINGER and WILLIAM YARDLEY

Published: April 4, 2007

A day after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government had the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases, President Bush said he thought that the measures he had taken so far were sufficient.

But the court's ruling was being welcomed by Congress and the states, which are already using the decision to speed their own efforts to regulate the gases that contribute to global climate change. As a result, Congress and state legislatures are almost certain to be the arenas for far-reaching and bruising lobbying battles.

Mr. Bush made it clear in remarks on Tuesday that he thought his proposal to increase automobile fuel efficiency was sufficient for the moment; he gave no indication he would ask the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases.

''Whatever we do,'' he said, ''must be in concert with what happens internationally.'' He added, ''Unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.''

But with Congress and the states more determined than ever to act, some of the nation's largest industries -- including automobile manufacturers and the oil companies that make their gasoline, and electric utilities and the coal companies that fire many of their boilers -- now face the increasingly certain prospect of expensive controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common heat-trapping gas associated with climate change.

At least 300 bills have been filed in 40 states that address heat-trapping gases and climate change in some form, said Adela Flores-Brennan, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Washington, Congress has already begun a process that would eventually apportion both the responsibility for cuts in emissions that could cost tens of billions of dollars and the benefits and incentives that could mean billions of dollars of new income.

''Obviously, nobody wants to bear a disproportionate share of the burden,'' said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the newly created House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. ''It's now going to be a multidimensional chess game with the planet's future in the balance.''

The way legislation apportions emissions cuts among industries -- and, as important, how the credits earned by companies that reduce emissions are allocated -- will be the focus of the lobbying, said Mr. Markey and lobbyists for environmental groups and industry.

''It's incumbent on everyone to roll their sleeves up, if they haven't already, to deal seriously with this problem,'' said Luke Popovich of the National Mining Association, the trade group for the coal mine operators who will be at the center of the lobbying. ''If pain concentrates the mind, there will be more concentration on the issue now.''

Coal is the major source of electricity in more than half the states, and coal is the fuel most closely associated with high levels of emissions of carbon dioxide. And coal interests have a bipartisan audience. The United Mine Workers is a natural Democratic constituency, while the National Mining Association has been a reliable supporter of the Bush administration.

''There are differences within the industry,'' Mr. Popovich said, ''but we are allied in favor of a solution that preserves coal's growth in the United States.''

Next to the electric-utility sector, which is responsible for about 40 percent of emissions of heat-trapping gases, Mr. Markey said, comes the transportation sector, which contributes roughly 30 percent.

The auto industry has long opposed increases in fuel-efficiency standards, which automatically mean a reduction in heat-trapping gases. The oil industry has resisted controls on carbon dioxide emissions. Until recently, the two industries, while occasionally sniping at each other, had avoided explicit endorsement of the regulation that was most feared by the other.

But, with the likelihood of Congressional action increasing, that informal nonaggression pact has ended. Executives of the Big Three auto companies testifying in the House last month explicitly supported regulation of carbon dioxide. And a senior oil industry executive earlier this year gave a speech advocating increases in fuel economy.

The Supreme Court found Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency had erred in justifying its decision not to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases. The court said that by providing nothing more than a ''laundry list of reasons not to regulate,'' the agency had defied the Clean Air Act's ''clear statutory command.'' The ruling also said that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate heat-trapping gases unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal to do so.

In Congress, controls on automobile emissions remain a work in progress. In more than a dozen states, beginning with California in 2002, they have become a fact -- although these laws have been stayed pending legal challenges. Those challenges were greatly weakened, however, by the Supreme Court ruling.

Correction: April 10, 2007, Tuesday
A front-page article on Wednesday about reaction to a Supreme Court decision that said the federal government had the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases misstated the cuts in carbon emissions that Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich has proposed in Illinois. By the year 2050, the proposal would restrict carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels -- not 60 percent.